Elektronicznie podpisany przez Polish Botanical Society

DN: c=IE, st=Warszawa, o=ditorPolish Bot, ou=Standard Certificate,

Polish Botanical Society
ou=anical SocietySupport, serialNumber=PT2110520970.1,
title=Managing E, sn=Otreba, givenName=org.plPiotr,
email=p.otreba@pbsociety., cn=Polish Botanical Society
Data: 2014.01.20 19:44:59 +01'00'

ACTA AGROBOTANICA
Vol. 66 (4), 2013: 143–156
Original Research Paper
DOI: 10.5586/aa.2013.061

THE POTENTIAL IMPORTANCE OF SYNANTHROPIC VEGETATION

TO BUMBLEBEES IN URBAN ECOSYSTEMS
ON THE EXAMPLE OF LUBLIN

Magdalena Lubiarz1, Ewa Trzaskowska2

The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin

1
Department of Environmental Protection and Landscape Preservation
2
Department for Natural Fundations of landscape Architecture, Konstantynów 1H, 20-708 Lublin, Poland
e-mail: 1 lubiarz@kul.pl, 2 etrzaskowska@kul.pl

Received: 10.12.2013

Abstract of urban green spaces can be important resources for

This study was an attempt to show synanthropic phyto-
coenoses of the city of Lublin which are potentially valuable to
pollinating insects such as bumblebees. B. terrestris and B. la-
pidarius as well as B. lucorum, B. hypnorum and B. pascuorum
were found to occur in Lublin. Artemisio-Tanacetetum, Bunie-
tum orientalis, and Berteroëtum incanae were shown to be most
valuable to bumblebees due to a high number of polleniferous
and nectariferous species in these communities. The present stu-
dy also allowed us to determine that the size of communities and
their occurrence in a mosaic with parks and green spaces had an
effect on the distribution of bumblebees.
Key words: synanthropic communities, bumblebees, urban
ecosystems, urban vegetation
Running head
Importance of urban synanthropic vegetation to
bumblebees
INTRODUCTION
Bumblebees belong to the family Apidae, tribe
Bombini. In Europe 62 species are encountered [1],
whereas 31 species belonging to the genus Bombus
Latreille 1802 have been recorded in Poland [2]. Cur-
rently, most bumblebee species are fully protected in
our country and only the buff-tailed bumblebee and
red tailed bumblebee are partially protected under the
relevant Regulation of the Minister of Environment
[3]. Various authors stress the decrease in species rich-
ness and in the number of pollinating insects, including
bumblebees [4–9].
Bumblebees occur in different environments,
including urbanized environment [10–18]. Some forms
pollinators [14,19,20]. Even roadside vegetation can
play a major role in the development of pollinating
insects [21]. Many insects, including pollinators, use
synanthropic plants as a source of food [5,7,22–25].
The importance of green areas as local fauna habitats
is also increasing [17]. Even a small space overgrown
with synanthropic vegetation is sometimes sufficient
and can become a refuge for insects [26–28]. As repor-
ted by B a n a s z a k [29], a large dominance of social
bee species is observed in cities. This author suppo-
ses that the social life of bees can be instrumental in
overcoming the barriers of urbanization, similarly as
polylectism, that is, an adaptation to forage on flowers
of many unrelated plant species [5,29,30]. Bumblebees
are both social and polylectic bees and hence they have
traits that facilitate their survival in the anthropogenic
environment. Nevertheless, A h r n é et al. [31] found
in Stockholm a decline in the numbers of bumblebee
species along a gradient of increasing urbanization,
even in the case of the presence of a suitable habitat
for foraging. In turn, P a w l i k o w s k i and O l ę d z -
k a [32] showed in Toruń that the mosaic nature of
habitats and the proportion of developed land had the
greatest effect on the occurrence of bumblebees in this
city. Bumblebees prefer habitats with a large propor-
tion of shrubs and in which developed land does not
exceed 40% of the area [32]. Bumblebees build the-
ir nests mostly in the soil, but also on its surface be-
tween stones and plants, or in leaf litter. Most nests
are observed on the edges of forests and tree stands
as well as under shrubs, in field margins or in clover
crops [5,7]. Both foraging flight ranges and energy
requirements of large and small bees differ [33,34].

© The Author(s) 2013 Published by Polish Botanical Society

144 Magdalena Lubiarz, Ewa Trzaskowska
As a result of that, each of these groups responds dif-
ferently to environmental changes at the landscape le-
vel. Their sensitivity to the specific characteristics of
a particular habitat also varies [35,36]. Large social
bees, including bumblebees, are capable of foraging
within a radius of more than 1 km from their nests,
whereas smaller solitary bees are generally thought to
be able to fly to a distance of about 250 m from their
nests [20,34,37,38]. However, E r e m e e v a and S u -
s h c h e v [25] report that bumblebees look for food
within a radius of 2 km from their nests. In turn, W o l f
and M o r i t z [39] showed that Bombus terrestris wor-
kers foraged within an average distance of 267 m from
their nests, 800 m at the maximum. G r e e n l e a f et
al. [34] give a method for measuring foraging distance
of Apidae depending on body size, but the presented
results mainly relate to non-social bees. However, the-
se authors did not determine whether trophic specia-
lization (including polylectism) affected bee foraging
distance [34].
In the Lublin region, there have been earlier stu-
dies on the importance of plants to pollinating insects.
M a s i e r o w s k a [40] studied in Lublin ornamental
plants of the family Saxifragaceae as a source of food
for pollinating insects. W r z e s i e ń and D e n i s o w
[26,41,42] investigated the proportion of bee plants
in xerothermic grasslands of the Lublin Upland and
in phytocoenoses near railway tracks of the Lublin
Upland as well as in the Roztocze and Polesie regions.
D e n i s o w and W r z e s i e ń [43] investigated mid-
field tree stands, fallow lands and field margins in the
area of Lublin, with special attention to nectariferous
and polleniferous plants.
The aim of the present study was to show the
role of synanthropic communities to bumblebees fo-
und in urbanized areas on the example of Lublin. Bio-
diversity conservation provides for measures at all le-
vels and in all kinds of environments. Therefore, the
present authors decided to investigate the potential im-
portance of spontaneous vegetation of urban areas in
the maintenance of biological diversity of this impor-
tant group of pollinating insects, notably bumblebees.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Phytosociological surveys covering the Lublin
city area formed the basis for this study designed to
determine the importance of synanthropic vegetation
to bumblebees. 386 relevés were made over the period
2005–2010. Field investigations were carried out using
relevés which were analysed following the Braun-Bla-
nquet method. During the investigations, bumblebee
visitation and foraging were observed. In May and
June 2012, observations were carried out in individual
synanthropic communities to record in which of them
bumblebees appeared and in which they did not occur.
© The Author(s) 2013
These were only qualitative investigations, not quan-
titative ones. Particular individuals were not counted
and only the presence of bumblebees in a particular
type of environment was recorded. This allowed us to
initially determine whether synanthropic communities
of Lublin were used by bumblebees at all. Bumblebees
were identified using the relevant keys [7,44].
Subsequently, the collected material was analy-
sed in terms of the potential usefulness of the identified
communities and plants composing these communities
to bumblebees. The distribution and size of synanthro-
pic vegetation patches in Lublin were analysed. Syn-
thetic vegetation tables were made and they showed
the following indices: cover-abundance, sociability
and constancy. The phenology of synanthropic plant
species occurring in synanthropic communities of Lu-
blin was determined. The data relating to plants useful
to pollinating insects (nectariferous and polleniferous
species) followed [26,45]. The obtained phytosociolo-
gical data were compared with the phenology of the two
most frequently observed bumblebee species, Bombus
terrestris and Bombus lapidarius. In this way, the stu-
dy demonstrated the potential usefulness of synanth-
ropic plant communities in Lublin as a food resource
for bumblebees. This paper follows phytosociological
nomenclature of M a t u s z k i e w i c z [46] and it is
additionally based on the studies of F i j a ł k o w s k i
[47] and J a n e c k i [48]. The names of bumblebees
follow B a n a s z a k [2].
RESULTS
The present study conducted in Lublin found the
occurrence of 35 synanthropic communities: Vicietum
tetrospermae, Galinsogo-Setarietum, Echinochloo-Se-
tarietum, Panico-Eragrostietum, Chenopodietum stric-
ti, Sisymbrietum loeselii, Urtico-Malvetum, Erigeron-
to-Lactucetum, Hordeetum murini, a community with
Lepidum ruderale, Onopordetum acanthii, Echio-Meli-
lotetum, Berteroëtum incanae, Artemisio-Tanacetetum,
Bunietum orientalis, Leonuro-Ballotetum, Leonuro-
-Arctietum, Ivetum xantifoliae, Tussilaginetum, a com-
munity with Cannabis ruderalis, a community with He-
liantus tuberosus, Urtico-Aegopodietum, a community
with Impatiens parviflora, Chelidonio-Robinietum, Ca-
lystegio-Eupatorietum, Urtico-Calystegietum, a com-
munity with Impatiens glandulifera, a community with
Lycium barbarum, a community with Reynoutria japo-
nica, Sambucetum nigrae, Cardario-Agropyretum, Lo-
lio-Polygonetum, Lolio-Potentilletum, Prunello-Planta-
ginetum, and Bryo-Saginetum procumbentis (Table 1).
The presence of bumblebees was recorded in
most synanthropic communities of Lublin. These in-
sects were not observed only in the community with
Lepidum ruderale, Chenopodietum stricti, Panico-
-Eragrostietum, and Bryo-Saginetum. The following
Published by Polish Botanical Society
 The potential importance of synanthropic vegetation to bumblebees in urban ecosystems on the example of Lublin
bumblebee species were found to occur within the stu-
dy area: Bombus terrestris (Linnaeus 1758), Bombus
lapidarius (Linnaeus 1758), Bombus lucorum (Linna-
eus 1761), Bombus hypnorum (Linnaeus 1758), and
Bombus pascuorum (Scopoli 1763). The other bum-
blebees that appeared within the study area were not
identified to the level of species. Two species: B. terre-
stris and B. lapidaries, were most frequently observed.
Given that bumblebees foraging in synanthropic com-
munities were observed in Lublin, it should therefore
be assumed that a part of them can also nest within the
city area, including in synanthropic communities where
shrubs or clusters of plants such as Tanacetum vulgare
are observed.
The pattern of distribution and variation of sy-
nanthropic communities in Lublin can be related to the
occurrence of bumblebees. These insects are associa-
ted with areas in which they can build nests and at the
same time find food [49,50]. As shown by the rese-
arch, the spatial pattern of communities is determined
by anthropogenic factors manifested in the zonation
from the centre of the city to its outskirts and this is
associated with the historically determined distribution
of anthropopressure. Different zones can be distingu-
ished, which is also confirmed by the study on vegeta-
tion conducted by R y s i a k [51].
The smallest spaces are occupied by synanthro-
pic plants and communities in the city centre where at
the same time green areas are also the smallest. They
are limited to degraded lawns and slopes. There are
communities with low specialization (Lolio-Polygone-
tum, Bryo-Saginetum procumbentis, a community with
Lycium barbarum), communities in impoverished form
(a smaller number of species recorded in these commu-
nities compared to those found on the city outskirts),
and communities that often occur only temporarily (Pa-
nico-Eragrostietum), which is associated with their de-
struction during tending treatments. Single bumblebee
individuals were observed there, in particular on the
slope of the Old Town near allotment gardens located
on the Bystrzyca River.
The variation in plants and communities incre-
ases with an increasing distance from the city centre
and already in the Śródmieście district synanthropic
communities occupy larger area; apart from the above-
-mentioned ones, communities associated with parks,
green spaces, and flower borders appear (Galinsogo-
-Setarietum, Urtico-Malvetum, Hordeetum murini,
Urtico-Aegopodietum, a community with Impatiens
parviflora, Chelidonio-Robinietum). Here, there are
also no connections between individual spaces over-
grown with plants. As indicated above, single bumble-
bee individuals were recorded in these communities.
On the other hand, in housing estates, near ro-
ads and on bodies of water, synanthropic plants and
communities are an admixture and they form a mosaic
© The Author(s) 2013
145
together with structured vegetation and natural com-
munities. In terms of area, synanthropic communities
are a dominant component of green spaces (extensive
lawns). 23 synanthropic communities were identified
in this part of the city. Among them, the following
were frequently encountered: Bunietum orientalis,
Cardario-Agropyretum, Chelidonio-Robinietum, and
Urtico-Aegopodietum. They usually develop near cul-
tural landscape elements: consciously structured plant
cover or artificial abiotic structures. This variation in
communities and the occurrence of a mosaic had a di-
stinct effect on the presence of bumblebees, in parti-
cular at places where wastelands and extensive lawns
were adjacent to each other.
Synanthropic communities are a major element
of the landscape in undeveloped areas and wastelands.
Communities found in such places are characterized
by high species variation and they occupy an area
from 25 m, to several hectares [52]. For many years,
the development of ruderal communities has been ob-
served near railway tracks and in post-industrial are-
as that have not yet been designated for any specific
use as well as in managed green spaces such as lawns
and parks. Such wastelands overgrown primarily with
Artemisio-Tanacetetum can be found in almost all the
gullies of Lublin, but also in fallow lands in a mosa-
ic with cultivated fields on the city outskirts. Ruderal
communities also occupy the largest areas in Lublin,
though the spread of these communities is limited by
changes in land use, progressive urbanization, the de-
velopment of wastelands, and the aestheticization of
space. Bumblebees were most often observed in such
places and these were always numerous individuals.
In Lublin the variation of synanthropic com-
munities and the area occupied by them affected the
occurrence of bumblebees. This is also shown in the
research of P a w l i k o w s k i and O l ę d z k a [32] as
well as in the study of E r e m e e v a and S u s h c h e v
[25]. Bumblebees prefer urban areas with mosaic vege-
tation, but with a predominance of shrubby vegetation,
and they nest within a distance of 2km from foraging
sites. They choose areas with woody or grassland ve-
getation much less frequently [25,32]. To build nests,
bumblebee species occurring in Poland need areas co-
vered by shrubs or with dense canopies of large peren-
nials. A part of species nest on the edges of tree stands
[5]. Only some species, such as Bombus hypnorum, are
able to locate their nests in gaps between stones or in
attics of residential and industrial buildings [25].
Spontaneous synanthropic communities deve-
lop to different degrees and their floristic composition
significantly differ from the structure of communities
known from typical ruderal sites (wastelands, land-
fills, places near human dwellings and fences, etc.) in,
among others, the proportion of meadow species and
in the absence of characteristic synanthropic species.
Published by Polish Botanical Society
146 Magdalena Lubiarz, Ewa Trzaskowska
The analysis of the status of synanthropic communities
in Lublin shows that urbanization results not only in de-
creased variation in plant communities, but it also cau-
ses a decline in the number of species. Resistant species,
in particular cosmopolitan ones (Eragrostis sp., Plan-
tago major, Polygonum aviculare), which form small
clusters and are of little importance to bumblebees, are
predominant in the city centre. The further from the
centre, the variation in anthropopressure forms incre-
ases the richness of plant communities and the number
of species in the external zone of Lublin also increases.
In terms of species variation, the least numerous were
associations of the class Molinio-Arrhenatheretea –
Bryo-Saginetum in which 17 species were identified (on
average 4 species per relevé) and of the class Stelarie-
tea mediae – a community with Lepidium ruderale, in
which 11 species were identified (on average 7); they
were found in habitats most transformed by anthropo-
pressure in the city centre. The following communities
of the class Artemisietea vulgaris were richest in spe-
cies: Artemisio-Tanacetetum in which 170 species were
found (on average 17) and Bunietum orientalis with
110 species (on average 18), occurring in the gullies,
wastelands, and extensive lawns. These are also com-
munities richest in nectar and pollen producing species
(Table 1). The largest concentrations of bee plants were
found in the following communities: Atremisio-Tana-
cetetum (60 species), Bunietum orientalis (46 species),
and Berteroëtum incanae (41 species). Half less pol-
leniferous and nectariferous species were found in the
following communities: Sisymbrietum loeselii (27 spe-
cies), Urtico-Calystegietum (21 species), Urtico-Ma-
lvetum (20 species), Echio-Melilotetum (20 species),
and Leonuro-Ballotetum (20 species). The percentage
of bee forage species found in individual communities
is from 14 to 100%, whereas in nine communities they
accounted for more than 50% of the species composi-
tion. However, this does not coincide with the varia-
tion in the communities in terms of their species rich-
ness. In spite of great species variation in synanthropic
communities, only a part of plant species important to
bumblebees occur frequently or with high cover-abun-
dance and sociability in synanthropic communities of
Lublin, which was determined taking into account the
constancy classes (Table 2). The following can be men-
tioned among them: Achillea millefolium L. (17 asso-
ciations), Aegopodium podagraria L. (8 associations),
Artemisia vulgaris L. (22 associations), Ballota nigra
L. (17 associations), Chelidonium majus L. (7 asso-
ciations), Chenopodium album L. (12 associations),
Galium aparine L. (13 associations), Lamium album
L. (11 associations), Medicago lupulina L. (9 associa-
tions), Melandrium album (Mill.) Garcke (11 associa-
tions), Sambucus nigra L. (9 associations), Solidago
gigantea Aiton (15 associations), Tanacetum vulgare
© The Author(s) 2013
L. (12 associations), Taraxacum officinale F.H. Wigg.
(27 associations), and Trifolium pratense L. (10 asso-
ciations). At the same time, it was observed that there
were communities, e.g. Erigeronto-Lactucetum, Pani-
co-Eragrostietum, Ivetum xantifoliae, and a community
with Impatiens glandulifera, in which bee plants were
most frequently characterized by low cover. Besides,
the species found in them do not provide for the needs
of insects throughout the whole season.
Another aspect that was taken into considera-
tion was the flowering duration of bee plants in parti-
cular communities and clusters formed by them. The
analysis of the presence of bee forage plants in particu-
lar communities and their flowering periods shows that
the above-mentioned plants formed dense clusters and
their flowering occurred in different periods of the gro-
wing season in the following communities: Atremisio-
-Tanacetetum, Bunietum orientalis, and Berteroëtum
incanae (Tables 2 and 3).
The results of the present study compared with
the phenology of the two most numerous bumblebee
species confirm the potential usefulness of synanthro-
pic plant communities to these insects. In particular,
the flowering periods of synanthropic bee plants clear-
ly coincide with the periods of dynamic bumblebee de-
velopment (Tables 2–4). Plants of synanthropic com-
munities such as Tussilago farfara or Trifolium repens
flower already from April or May. In turn, Ballota ni-
gra and Medicago sp. flower from June even until the
end of September (Table 2). The strongest bumblebee
colony development usually occurs between June and
August (Table 4), which coincides with the flowering
of many plants valuable to these insects or of one spe-
cies but which is a dominant element in the communi-
ty. It is perfectly reflected in Table 3 which shows the
flowering of bee plants in synanthropic communities
of Lublin. The dominant (full) flowering occurs in par-
ticular in June, July and August, thus in the months
important in bumblebee colony development. Taking
into account both the number of bee forage species in
synanthropic communities of Lublin and the full flo-
wering period of these plants, it can be stated that the
communities Artemisio-Tanacetetum and Bunietum
orientalis have the greatest importance as a source of
food for bumblebees, even more so that these commu-
nities occupy larger areas and occur in a mosaic with
other communities. We should not however ignore the
importance of other communities that can be a supple-
mentary source of food, since bumblebees are polylec-
tic insects. Given the trophic adaptations of bumblebe-
es, it can be concluded that synanthropic communities
are potentially very valuable to them. In the spring and
early summer, these insects readily visit flowers of
trees such as Robinia pseudoacacia or Tilia cordata
as a source of food, but the period of late summer or
Published by Polish Botanical Society
 The potential importance of synanthropic vegetation to bumblebees in urban ecosystems on the example of Lublin 147

early autumn is not abundant in flowering trees and album have a huge role in providing food to bumble-
therefore species such as Galium aparine or Lamium bees after these trees finish flowering.

Table 1
Species variation in synanthropic communities found in Lublin,
together with the number and percentage of bee plant species

Number of plant species

Number of bee Percentage of bee
No. Name of association in particular synanthropic
plant species plant species
communities
1. Vicietum tetrospermae 64 19 29.7
2. Echinochloo-Setarietum 39 18 46.1
3. Galinsogo-Setarietum 30 14 46.7
4. Panico-Eragrostietum 25 13 52.0
5. Chenopodietum stricti 31 15 48.4
6. Sisymbrietum loeselii 49 27 55.1
7. Urtico-Malvetum 59 20 33.9
8. Erigeronto-Lactucetum 8 8 100
9. Hordeetum murini 42 14 33.3
10. community with Lepidium ruderale 10 6 60
11. Onopordetum acanthii 13 8 61.5
12. Echio-Melilotetum 52 20 38.5
13. Berteroëtum incanae 73 41 56.2
14. Artemisio-Tanacetetum 170 60 35.3
15. Bunietum orientalis 110 46 41.8
16. Leonuro-Ballotetum 48 20 41.7
17. Leonuro-Arctietum 24 14 58.3
18. Ivetum xantifolia 25 13 52.0
19. Tussilaginetum 33 8 24.2
20. community with Cannabis ruderale 20 8 40.0
21. community with Heliantus tuberosus 35 5 14.3
22. Urtico-Aegopodietum 49 19 38.8
23. community with Impatiens parviflora 41 9 21.9
24. Chelidonio-Robinietum 54 15 27.8
25. Calystegio-Eupatorietum 31 14 45.2
26. Urtico-Calystegietum 47 21 44.7
27. community with Impatiens glandulifera 7 7 100
28. community with Lycium barbarum 55 16 29.1
29. community with Reynoutria japonica 28 8 28.6
30. Sambucetum nigrae 42 14 33.3
31. Cardario-Agropyretum 68 17 25.0
32. Lolio-Polygonetum 86 12 14.0
33. Lolio-Potentilletum 34 9 26.5
34. Prunello-Plantaginetum 46 15 32.6
35. Bryo-Saginetum 17 6 35.3

© The Author(s) 2013 Published by Polish Botanical Society

148
List and characteristics of plant species most frequently found in synanthropic communities in Lublin
No. Plant species
bumblebees1
1. Acer negundo L.
2. Achillea millefolium L.
3. Aegopodium podagraria L.
4. Agrimonia eupatoria L.
5. Anchusa officinalis L.
6. Anthemis arvensis L.
7. Arctium lappa L.
8. Arctium minus (Hill) Bernh.
9. Arctium tomentosum Mill.
10 Artemisia vulgaris L.
11. Aster novi-belgii L.
12. Ballota nigra L.
13. Bellis perennis L.
14. Berteroa incana (L.) DC.
15. Bunias orientalis L.
16. Calystegia sepium (L.) R.Br.
17. Cardaria draba (L.) Desv.
18. Carduus crispus L.
19. Centaurea cyanus L.
20. Centaurea scabiosa L.
Chamomilla suaveolens
21.
(Pursh) Rydb.
22. Chelidonium majus L.
23. Chenopodium album L.
24. Cichorium intybus L.
25. Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.
26. Consolida regalis Gray
27. Convolvulus arvensis L.
Conyza canadensis (L.)
28.
Conqist
29. Coronilla varia L.
30. Daucus carota L.
31. Echium vulgare L.
Magdalena Lubiarz, Ewa Trzaskowska
Table 2.
Usefulness Occurrence of the species
Average
of plants to in synanthropic communities 2
flowering time
(Cover-abundance3; Sociability4)
5(1,1), 11(1,1), 14(1,1), 15(1,1), 16(1,1), 17(1,1), 24(1,3),
N, P 05.04 - 20.05
26(1,1), 28(1,1)
1(1,2), 3(1,1), 4(1,4), 7(2,2), 8( 1,1), 9(1,2), 12(1,4),
N, P 20.05 - 30.09 13(1,3), 14(1,3), 15(1,3), 28(1,2), 30(1,1), 31(1,1), 32(1,2),
33(1,1), 34(1,3), 35(1,1)
15(1,1), 20(3,1), 22(3,5), 23(3,3), 24(2,3), 26(2,1), 29(1,2),
N, P 20.05 - 10.07
30(2,2)
N, P 10.06 - 15.08 14(1,1)
N, P 15.05 - 30.09 15(1,1)
N, P 15.06 - 20.07 1(1,2), 2(1,2), 3(1,3), 6(2,2)
9(1,2), 14(1,1), 15(1,4), 16(2,4), 17(1,1), 26(1,2), 28(1,1),
N, P 10.07 - 20.08
31(1,1)
N, P 05.07 - 20.08 18(1,2), 22(1,2), 23(1,1), 24(1,1), 30(1,1)
N, P 01.07 - 01.09 5(1,2), 7(1,1), 14(1,1), 15(1,1), 25(1,1)
1(1,2), 2(1,2), 3(1,4), 4(1,1), 5(1,2), 6(1,1), 7(1,1), 12(1,4),
P 15.07 - 20.10 13(1,2), 14(1,5), 15(1,2), 16(1,2), 17(1,2), 18(1,2), 22(1,4),
24(1,1), 25(1,2), 26(1,1), 27(1,1), 28(1,3), 31(1,3), 32(1,1)
N, P 10.08 - 20.09 26(1,1)
6(1,1), 7(1,2), 9(1,1), 13(2,1), 15(1,1), 16(2,4), 17(2,4),
N, P 01.07 - 10.09 18(1,2), 19(1,1), 20(1,2), 21(1,1), 22(1,1), 23(1,2), 24(1,4),
26(1,1), 27(1,4), 30(1,1)
N, P 20.04 - 15.07 34(1,1)
N, P 10.05 - 30.09 4(1,1), 12(1,1), 13(1,5), 14(1,1), 15(1,1), 25(1,1)
N, P 05.05 - 10.06 6(1,1), 15(4,5)
N, P 10.06 - 10.09 18(1,1), 25(4,5), 26(3,5), 27(3,1),
N, P 05.05 - 01.06 18(1,1), 31(3,5)
N, P 25.06 - 01.09 15(2,1)
N, P 10.06 - 01.08 2(2,3), 13(1,1)
N, P 20.06 - 10.09 13(2,1)
4(1,1), 6(1,1), 7(1,1), 9(1,2), 10(1,1), 16(1,2), 32(1,4),
N, P 10.06 - 20.07
33(1,2), 34(1,1), 35(1,2)
P 05.05 - 10.10 13(1,1), 17(1,1), 22(2,2), 23(1,1), 24(3,5), 28(1,2), 30(2,3)
3(1,4), 4(1,1), 5(2,5), 6(1,3), 7(1,1), 8(1,1), 9(1,1), 16(1,2),
P 20.06 - 20.09
18(1,1), 20(1,2), 29(1,1), 33(1,1)
N, P 10.06 - 01.09 12(1,1), 14(1,1), 15(1,2), 31(1,2)
2(1,2), 3(1,1), 5(1,2), 8(1,2), 12(1,4), 14(1,4), 15(1,3),
N, P 30.06 - 20.08 16(1,1), 17(1,2), 18(1,1), 19(1,2), 22(1,2), 25(1,1), 26(1,3),
27(1,1), 31(1,2)
N, P 10.06 - 20.07 1(1,1), 2(1,1), 3(1,1)
1(1,4), 2(1,2), 3(1,4), 5(1,2), 7(2,2), 9(1,3), 10(1,1), 11(2,1),
N, P 10.06 - 10.09 12(1,1), 13(1,1), 14(1,2), 15(1,2), 16(1,1), 22(1,1), 31(1,4),
32(1,1)
1(1,1), 2(1,1), 3(1,1), 4(1,2), 5(1,2), 6(1,1), 7(1,4), 8(1,4),
P 05.06 - 10.10 9(1,2), 10(1,2), 14(1,1), 15(1,1), 16(1,2), 26(1,1), 28(1,2),
31(1,2), 32(1,2), 35(1,2)
N, P 10.06 - 10.08 13(2,1)
N, P 20.06 - 15.09 1(1,2), 5(1,2), 8(1,2), 12(1,5), 13(1,2), 14(1,3)
N, P 10.06 - 10.09 12(2,4), 13(1,2), 15(1,2)
© The Author(s) 2013 Published by Polish Botanical Society
 The potential importance of synanthropic vegetation to bumblebees in urban ecosystems on the example of Lublin 149

32. Epilobium angustifolium L. N 10.06 - 15.09 14(1,1)

33. Eupatorium cannabinum L. N, P 20.06 - 15.08 25(3,5)
34. Euphorbia cyparissias L. N, P 01.05 - 20.05 13(1,1), 15(1,1), 18(1,1)
35. Euphorbia esula L. N, P 20.05 - 20.07 12(1,1), 14(1,1)
Fallopia convolvulus (L.)
36. N, P 20.05 - 20.06 1(1,1), 3(1,2), 13(1,1), 25(1,1), 26(1,2)
A. Love
37. Galeopsis tetrahit L. N 15.06 - 10.10 6(1,1), 13(1,1)
1(1,1), 2(1,2), 13(1,1), 14(1,1), 15(1,1), 16(1,1), 17(1,3),
38. Galium aparine L. N, P 10.06 - 15.09
20(2,2), 22(3,3), 24(2,2), 25(3,1), 26(1,2), 28(1,2)
39. Galium mollugo L. N 15.06 - 15.09 13(1,1), 14(1,1), 15(1,2), 25(1,2)
40. Galium verum L. N, P 10.07 - 20.09 14(1,1)
41. Geranium pratense L. N, P 10.06 - 10.08 14(1,1)
42. Geum urbanum L. N,P 01.06 - 20.06 13(1,1), 22(1,4), 23(1,3), 29(1,1), 30(1,1)
43. Glechoma hederacea L. N, P 20.04 - 10.07 7(1,1), 22(1,2)
44. Helianthus tuberosus L. N, P 20.08 - 15.10 5(1,2), 21(3,5)
45. Heracleum sphondylium L. N, P 15.06 - 01.09 14(1,1), 15(1,1), 25(1,2), 26(1,2)
46. Hypercium perforatum L. P 05.06 - 30.07 12(1,1), 14(1,1), 15(1,1), 34(1,1)
47. Impatiens glandulifera Royle N, P 20.07 - 30.09 27(2,5)
6(1,1), 13(1,1), 22(1,2), 23(4,5), 24(3,3), 25(1,1), 26(1,3),
48. Impatiens parviflora DC. N, P 20.07 - 10.09
28(1,2), 30(1,1)
49. Iva xantiifolia Nutt. P 20.08 - 20.10 5(1,1), 18(4,5)
6(1,1), 7(1,1), 15(1,1), 16(1,2), 17(1,1), 22(1,1), 23(1,1),
50. Lamium album L. N, P 20.04 - 30.09
24(1,1), 25(1,1), 26(1,1), 30(1,1)
51. Lamium purpureum L. N, P 15.04 - 01.09 3(1,2)
15(1,1), 17(2,4), 22(1,1), 24(1,2), 25 (1,1), 26 (1,2), 28(1,2),
52. Leonurus cardiaca L. N, P 20.06 - 15.08
30(1,1)
53. Linaria vulgaris Mill. N, P 15.06 - 20.09 1(1,1), 4(1,1), 6(1,1),
54. Lotus corniculatus L. P 10.05 - 15.09 13(1,2), 15(1,1), 34(1,1),
55. Lycium barbarum L. N, P 20.05 - 20.08 28(4,5)
56. Malva neglecta Wallr. N, P 15.06 - 15.09 7(3,5), 9(1,2), 13(1,1), 15(1,1), 28(1,1)
Matricaria maritima L. ssp.
57. N, P 10.05 - 20.09 4(1,1)
inodora
58. Medicago falcata L. N, P 10.06 - 15.09 12(1,4), 14(1,1), 15(1,2), 31(1,3)
6(1,1), 11(1,1), 12(1,4), 13(1,1), 14(1,1), 15(1,2), 31(1,2),
59. Medicago lupulina L. N, P 10.06 - 15.08
32(1,2), 34(1,2)
60. Medicago sativa L. N, P 10.06 - 15.08 6(2,1), 13(1,1), 14(1,1)
61. Medicago xvaria Martyn N, P 10.06 - 15.08 7(2,1)
Melandrium album (Mill.) 1(1,2), 3(1,1), 4(1,1), 7(1,1), 8(1,2), 12(1,1), 13(1,3),
62. N, P 20.05 - 30.09
Garcke 14(1,2), 15(1,1), 26(1,2), 28(1,1)
63. Melilotus albus Medik. N, P 10.06 - 15.08 6(1,1), 12(4,4), 13(1,1)
64. Melilotus officinalis (L.) Pall. N, P 01.06 - 20.07 12(1,1), 14(1,1)
65. Myosotis arvensis (L.) Hill. N, P 10.05 - 20.07 2(1,1)
66. Oenothera biennis L.s.s. N, P 15.06 - 20.08 13(1,1), 14(1,1)
67. Onopordum acathium L. N, P 15.06 - 20.07 6(1,1), 11(3,5)
68. Papaver rhoeas L. P 20.05 - 10.07 1(1,3), 2(2,2), 3(1,1), 6(1,2), 14(1,1), 15(1,1), 20(1,1)
6(1,1), 12(1,3), 13(1,1), 14(1,1), 15(1,2), 22(1,1), 32(1,1),
69. Pimpinella saxifraga L. N, P 15.06 - 30.09
34(1,1)
70. Plantago lanceolata L. P 15.05 - 10.09 13(1,3), 14 (1,1), 15(1,2), 32(1,1), 33(1,1), 34(1,2)
3(1,1), 4(1,3), 7(1,3), 9(2,2), 13(1,1), 18(1,1), 32(1,4),
71. Plantago major L. P 20.05 - 15.08
33(1,4), 34(2,4), 35(1,3)
4(1,5), 5(1,2), 6(1,1), 7(2,4), 9(2,3), 10(1,3), 13(1,1),
72. Polygonum aviculare L. N, P 10.05 - 30.10
16(1,1), 35(1,3)

© The Author(s) 2013 Published by Polish Botanical Society

150 Magdalena Lubiarz, Ewa Trzaskowska

73. Potentilla anserina L. P 10.05 - 20.07 4(1,1), 7(1,1), 32(1,1), 33(3,5), 34(1,2)
74. Prunella vulgaris L. N, P 10.05 - 20.08 34(3,5)
75. Ranunculus repens L. P 10.06 - 10.08 34(1,1)
76. Reseda lutea L. N, P 20.05 - 20.07 15(1,1)
77. Reynoutria japonica Houtt. N, P 05.08 - 30.09 29(45)
78. Robinia pseudoacacia L. N, P 10.06 - 25.06 24(2,5), 28(1,2), 30(1,1)
79. Rubus caesius L. N, P 25.05 - 10.07 13(1,1), 14(1,2), 15(1,1), 27(1,2)
80. Rumex acetosa L. P 10.05 - 20.07 13(1,1), 15(1,1)
81. Rumex crispus L. P 15.06 - 30.07 6(1,2), 14(1,1), 15(1,1), 22(1,1)
82. Rumex obtusifolius L. P 15.06 - 15.07 3(1,1), 11(1,2), 15(1,1), 16(1,3), 17(1,3), 22(1,1), 26(1,2)
14(1,2), 15(1,1), 16(1,1), 18(1,2), 20(1,3), 24(1,3), 26(1,1),
83. Sambucus nigra L. P 20.05 - 20.06
28(1,3), 30(1,5)
84. Saponaria officinalis N, P 15.06 - 15.09 24(2,1), 30(1,1)
85. Sedum acre L. N, P 15.05 - 20.07 13(1,1)
5(1,2), 6(3,5), 8(1,3), 9(1,2), 11(2,1), 14(1,2), 15(1,2),
86. Sisymbrium loeselii L. N, P 01.06 - 20.07
16(1,2), 19(1,2), 28(1,1), 30(1,1), 31(1,2)
87. Solidago canadensis L. P 05.08 - 10.10 6(1,1), 25(2,1), 26(1,3), 27(1,1)
5(1,5), 10(1,1), 11(2,1), 12(1,4), 14(4,5), 15(1,1), 16(1,2),
88. Solidago gigantea Aiton N, P 20.07 - 15.10 17(1,2), 19(1,1), 20(2,2), 22(1,2), 23(1,1), 29(1,2), 30(1,1),
31(1,2)
1(1,1), 2(1,2), 3(1,2), 6(1,2), 7(1,4), 9(1,2), 13(1,2), 14(1,1),
89. Sonchus arvensis L. N, P 05.07 - 20.09 15(1,1), 18(1,2), 19(1,1), 20(1,1), 21(1,1), 24(1,2), 26(1,1),
29(1,1), 31(1,2)
90. Symphytum officinale L. N, P 15.05 - 20.08 13(1,1), 26(1,2)
5(1,2), 6(1,1), 8(1,1), 11(2,1), 12(2,4), 13(1,2), 14(2,3),
91. Tanacetum vulgare L. P 20.07 - 01.10
15(1,4), 17(1,2), 21(1,1), 22(1,2), 29(1,2), 31(1,3)
1(1,1), 2(1,1), 3(1,1), 4(1,4), 5(1,2), 6(2,1), 7(2,5), 9(1,4),
Taraxacum officinale 10(1,3), 12(1,4), 13(1,3), 14(1,1), 15(1,3), 16(1,2), 17(1,1),
92. N, P 05.05 - 25.05
F.H. Wigg. 19(1,1), 21(1,1), 22(1,2), 23(1,2), 24(1,4), 28(1,2), 29(1,1),
31(1,5), 32(1,4), 33(2,2), 34(2,3), 35(1,2)
1(1,1), 6(1,1), 7(1,2), 9(1,2), 14(1,2), 15(1,3), 19(1,1),
93. Trifolium pratense L. N, P 01.06 - 30.07
31(2,3), 33(1,1), 34(1,2)
7(2,3), 12(2,4), 13(1,1), 15(1,2), 31(2,3), 32(2,4), 33(1,1),
94. Trifolium repens L N, P 20.05 - 30.08
34(1,4)
95. Tussilago farfara L. N, P 01.04 - 25.04 19(3,5)
96. Verbascum nigrum L. P 05.07 - 10.08 14(1,1), 16(1,1), 17(1,1)
97. Vicia angustifolia L N, P 10.05 - 15.08 18(1,1)
98. Vicia cracca L. N, P 10.06 - 20.08 13(1,1), 14(1,2)
99. Vicia sativa L. N, P 10.06 - 25.07 2(1,2), 3(1,1), 15(1,1)
100. Vicia sepium L. N, P 10.05 - 30.07 1(1,2)
101. Vicia tetrasperma (L.) Schreb. N, P 10.05 - 15.08 1(1,5), 2(1,1), 6(1,2), 14(1,1)
102. Viola arvensis Murray N, P 10.05 - 30.09 1(1,1), 13(1,1)
1
Usefulness of plants to bumblebees: N – nectariferous species; P – polleniferous species.
2
Plant communities: 1 – Vicietum tetrospermae, 2 – Echinochloo-Setarietum, 3 – Galinsogo-Setarietum, 4 – Panico-Eragrostietum,
5 – Chenopodietum stricti, 6 – Sisymbrietum loeselii, 7 – Urtico-Malvetum, 8 – Erigeronto-Lactucetum, 9 – Hordeetum murini, 10 – Com-
munity with Lepidium ruderale, 11 – Onopordetum acanthii, 12 – Echio-Melilotetum, 13 – Berteroëtum incanae, 14 – Artemisio-
Tanacetetum, 15 – Bunietum orientalis, 16 – Leonuro-Ballotetum, 17 – Leonuro-Arctietum, 18 – Ivetum xantifolia, 19 –Tussilaginetum,
20 – community with Cannabis ruderale, 21 – community with Heliantus tuberosus, 22 – Urtico-Aegopodietum, 23 – community
with Impatiens parviflora, 24 – Chelidonio-Robinietum, 25 – Calystegio-Eupatorietum, 26 – Urtico-Calystegietum, 27 – community
with Impatiens glandulifera, 28 – community with Lycium barbarum, 29 – zb. z Reynoutria japonica, 30 – Sambucetum nigrae,
31 – Cardario-Agropyretum, 32 – Lolio-Polygonetum, 33 – Lolio-Potentilletum, 34 – Prunello-Plantaginetum, 35 – Bryo-Saginetum.
3
Cover-abundance: 1–1-20; 2–21-40; 3–41-60; 4–61-80; 5–81–100.
4
Sociability: 1 – single individuals; 2 – the species grows in groups or tufts; 3 – the species grows in tufts forming small patches;
4 – the species grows in extensive patches; 5 – pure population.

© The Author(s) 2013 Published by Polish Botanical Society

 The potential importance of synanthropic vegetation to bumblebees in urban ecosystems on the example of Lublin
As mentioned above, it is presumed that po-
lylectism of bees, i.e. visiting flowers of unrelated
plants, is also an important feature that facilitates their
survival in the anthropogenic environment [30]. B a -
n a s z a k - C i b i c k a [30] includes Apis melifera L.
and members of the genus Bombus in bees characteri-
zed by polylectism. Thus, given that bumblebees can
collect food from many unrelated plants, a conclusion
then arises that such species-diverse synanthropic com-
munities of Lublin have a major role for bumblebees.
Bumblebees are very efficient pollinators and
besides they are less sensitive to changes in atmosphe-
ric conditions than A. melifera, especially to a decre-
ase in temperature and an increase in air humidity. It
is presumed that the work of one bumblebee is equal
to the work of 4–5 honey bee workers [5]. The role of
bumblebees as pollinators in human economy and in
the maintenance of the diversity of entomophilous flo-
ra is invaluable and therefore it seems so important to
maintain the largest possible number of environments
that they can inhabit. The phenomenon of mass die-off
of A. melifera, termed the CCD (Colony Collapse Di-
sorder) syndrome, has been observed in the world since
2006. Over a period of 4 years, the numbers of bees in
Germany and France decreased by 40%, while in some
regions of the USA even by 90%. In Poland this pheno-
menon is not observed with such intensity, but the first
symptoms can already be noticed [58]. Therefore, apart
from the research designed to find the reasons for the
CCD syndrome and to prevent it, simultaneously it is
important to protect pollinators, including bumblebees.
It is worth maintaining habitats that will serve
bumblebees in their development. The importance of
urban areas as unique fauna reservoirs is continually in-
creasing [14,17]. Under the Convention on Biological
Diversity, biodiversity conservation is included in the
state’s tasks and hence it is also important to protect
ecosystems and the continuity of biological process in
cities. Cities do not have vast habitat areas and in cities
there are few such biologically diverse places as synan-
thropic communities. In wasteland, animals can find
breeding sites and valuable trophic areas, since well-
-tended green spaces will not play such a role. Most
bumblebee species found in Poland build their nests in
the soil [5,7]. It is not possible for them to locate the-
ir nests in intensely mowed lawns or carefully tended
flower borders. Therefore, synanthropic communities
have a major role to play again; as natural open areas,
they can be perfect habitats for bumblebees.
The maintenance of spontaneous synanthropic
vegetation in urban areas enables the conservation of
biodiversity at different levels and leaving these habi-
tats creates conditions for living and development of
many animal species, including useful and protected
species such as bumblebees.
© The Author(s) 2013
153
Acknowledgments
Research supported by the activities of the Insti-
tute of Landscape Architecture, John Paul II Catholic
University of Lublin.
Authors’ contributions
The following declarations about authors’ contri-
butions to the research have been made: concept of the
study ML, ET, field work: ML, ET, writing: ML, ET.
REFERENCES
1. Fauna Europaea version 2.5. [Internet]. 2012 [Cited 2012
June 11]; Available from: http://www.faunaeur.org
2. B a n a s z a k J . Apidae. [In:] Bogdanowicz W, Chudzicka
E, Pilipiuk I, Skibińska E, editors Fauna Polski. Charaktery-
styka i wykaz gatunków. Fauna of Poland. Characteristic and
checklist of species. Warszawa: MiIZ PAN. 2004: 358–362.
(in Polish)
3. R o z p o r z ą d z e n i e M i n i s t r a Ś r o d o w i s k a z dnia
12 października 2011 roku w sprawie ochrony gatunkowej
zwierząt [Internet]. 2011 [Cited 2012 June 11]; Available from:
http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=WDU2011237
1419 (in Polish)
4. B a n a s z a k J . O ochronę gatunkową wszystkich pszczół
dziko żyjących (Hymenoptera, Apoidea). / For the conse-
rvation of all wild bee species (Hymenoptera, Apoidea).
Chrońmy przyrodę ojczystą. 1990; 1: 5–8. (in Polish)
5. B a n a s z a k J . Trzmiele Polski. Bydgoszcz: Wyższa
Szkoła Pedagogiczna w Bydgoszczy. 1993. (in Polish)
6. K o s i o r A . Changes in the fauna of bumble-bees (Bom-
bus Latr.) and cuckoo-bees (Psithyrus Lep.) of selected re-
gions in Southern Poland. [In:] Banaszak J. editor. Changes
in Fauna of Wild Bees in Europe. Pedagogical University,
Bydgoszcz. 1995: 103–114.
7. D y l e w s k a M . Nasze trzmiele. Karniowice: Ośrodek Do-
radztwa Rolniczego; 1996. (in Polish)
8. S á r o s p a t a k i M , N o v á k J , M o l n á r W. Assessing
the threatened status of bumble bee species (Hymenoptera,
Apidae) in Hungary, Central Europe. Biodiversity and Con-
servation. 2005; 14: 2437–2446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10531-004-0152-y
9. G o u l s o n D . Bumblebees; their behaviour, ecology and
conservation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2010.
10. B a n a s z a k J . Bees of urban environments in Poland. [In:]
Banaszak J. (ed.) Natural Resources of Wild Bees in Po-
land. Bydgoszcz: Pedagogical University. 1992: 101–107.
11. K l e m m M . Man-made bee habitats in the anthropogeno-
us landscape of central Europe – substitutes for threatened
or destroyed riverine habitats? [In:] Matheson A, Buchmann
SL, O’Toole C, Westrich P, Williams IH, (eds) The Conse-
rvation of Bees. London: Academic Press. 1996: 17–34.
12. G o u l s o n D , H u g h e s W O H , D e r w e n t L C ,
S t o u t J C . Colony growth of the bumble bee, Bombus
terrestris, in improved and conventional agricultural and
Published by Polish Botanical Society
154 Magdalena Lubiarz, Ewa Trzaskowska
suburban habitats. Oecologia. 2002. 130: 267–273. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1007/s004420100803
13. G o u l s o n D . Bumble bees – behaviour and ecology.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2003.
14. M c F r e d e r i c k Q S , L e B u h n G . Are urban parks
refuges for bumblebees Bombus spp. (Hymenoptera: Api-
dae)?. Biological Conservation. 2006; 129(3): 372–382.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.11.004
15. B a n a s z a k J . Fauna pszczół (Hymenoptera: Apoidea:
Apiformes) Bydgoszczy. / The bee fauna (Hymenoptera:
Apoidea: Apiformes) of Bydgoszcz. [In:] Indykiewicz P,
Jerzak L, Barczak T, editors. Fauna miast. Ochronić róż-
norodność biotyczną w miastach. Bydgoszcz: SAR “Pomo-
rze”. 2008; 234–245. (in Polish)
16. K o w a l c z y k J K , S z c z e p k o K , K u r z a c T . Stan
poznania pszczół (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Apiformes) Ło-
dzi. [In:] Indykiewicz P, Jerzak L, Barczak T, editors. Fauna
miast. Ochronić różnorodność biotyczną w miastach. Byd-
goszcz: SAR “Pomorze”. 2008; 246–252. (in Polish)
17. B a n a s z a k - C i b i c k a W, B a n a s z a k J . Pollinating
insects of cities (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Apiformes). Part
I. Fauna of Poznań in comparison with other polish cities.
In: Indykiewicz P, Jerzak L, Böhner J, Kavanagh B, edi-
tors. Urban fauna. Studies of animal biology, ecology and
conservation in European cities. Bydgoszcz: UTP. 2011;
227–236.
18. Lye G C , O s b o r n e J L , P a r k K J, G o u l s o n D.
Using citizen science to monitor Bombus populations in the
UK: nesting ecology and relative abundance in the urban
environment. J Insect Conserv. 2012; 16(5): 697–707.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10841-011-9450-3
19. M c I n t y r e N E , H o s t e t l e r M E . Effects of urban
land use on pollinator (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) communi-
ties in a desert metropolis. Basic and Applied Ecology. 2001;
2(3): 209–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1078/1439-1791-00051
20. H e n n i g E I , G h a z o u l J . Pollinating animals in the
urban environment. Urban Ecosyst. 2012; 15: 149–166.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11252-011-0202-7
21. H o p w o o d J L . The contribution of roadside grassland
restorations to native bee conservation. Biological Con-
servation. 2008; 141(10): 2632–2640. http://dx.doi.or-
g/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.026
22. B u s z k o J , M a s ł o w s k i J . Atlas motyli Polski. Część
I Motyle dzienne (Rhopalocera). Warszawa: Grupa IMAGE.
1993. (in Polish)
23. B u s z k o J . Atlas motyli Polski Część II Prządki, zawisa-
ki, niedźwiedziówki, Warszawa: Grupa IMAGE. 1997. (in
Polish)
24. B u s z k o J . Atlas motyli Polski Część III Falice, wycinki,
miernikowce, Warszawa: Grupa IMAGE. 2000. (in Polish)
25. E r e m e e v a N I , S u s h c h e v D V. Structural Changes in
the Fauna of Pollinating Insects in Urban Landscapes. Rus-
sian Journal of Ecology. 2005; 36(4) 259–265. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s11184-005-0070-6
26. W r z e s i e ń M , D e n i s o w B . The phytocoenoses of an-
thropogenically transformed areas with a great importance
for Apoidea. Acta Agrobot. 2007; 60(2): 117–126.
© The Author(s) 2013 Published by Polish Botanical Society
27. Ö c k i n g e r E , D a n n e s t a m A , S m i t h H G . The
importance of fragmentation and habitat quality of urban
grasslands for butterfly diversity. Landscape and Urban
Planning. 2009; 93: 31–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2009.05.021
28. B e r g e r o t B , F o n t a i n e B , R e n a r d M , C a d i A ,
J u l l i a r d R . Preferences for exotic flowers do not pro-
mote urban life in butterflies. Landscape and Urban Plan-
ning. 2010; 96(2): 98–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2010.02.007.
29. B a n a s z a k J . Pszczoły środowisk miejskich. [In:] Bar-
czak T, Indykiewicz P, editors. Fauna miast – Urban fauna.
Bydgoszcz: Wyd. ATR. 1998; 57–62. (in Polish)
30. B a n a s z a k - C i b i c k a W. Wstępne informacje o zróż-
nicowaniu fauny pszczół Poznania (Hymenoptera: Apo-
idea: Apiformes). [In:] Indykiewicz P, Jerzak L, Barczak
T, editors. Fauna miast. Ochronić różnorodność biotyczną
w miastach. Bydgoszcz: SAR “Pomorze. 2008; 260–264.
(in Polish)
31. A h r n é K , B e n g t s s o n J , E l m q v i s t T . Bumble
Bees (Bombus spp) along a Gradient of Increasing Urbani-
zation. PLoS. 2009; 4(5): e5574: 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1371/journal.pone.0005574
32. P a w l i k o w s k i T , O l ę d z k a J . Atrakcyjność środo-
wisk miejskich dla trzmieli (Hymenoptera, Apidae) na ob-
szarze Torunia. Wiad Entomol. 1996; 15(2): 97–103. (in
Polish)
33. A r a ujo E D, C o st a M , C h a ud -Ne t t o J, Fowle r HG.
Body size and flight distance in stingless bees (Hymenopte-
ra: Meliponini): Inference of flight range and possible eco-
logical implications. Braz J Biol. 2004; 64(3B): 563–568.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1519-69842004000400003
34. G r e e n l e a f S S , W i l l i a m s N M , W i n f r e e R ,
K r e m e n C . Bee foraging ranges and their relationship
to body size. Oecologia. 2007; 153: 589–596. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s00442-007-0752-9
35. G a t h m a n n A , T s c h a r n t k e T . Foraging ranges of
solitary bees. J Anim Ecol. 2002; 71: 757–764. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1046/j.1365-2656.2002.00641.x
36. S t e f f a n - D e w e n t e r I , M u n z e n b e r g U, B u r g e r C ,
T h i e s C . , T s c h a r n t k e T . Scale-dependent effects
of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology.
2002; 83: 1421–1432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658
(2002)083[1421:SDEOLC]2.0.CO;2
37. S t e f f a n - D e w e n t e r I , K u h n A . Honeybee fora-
ging in differentially structured landscapes. Proc. Biol. Sci.
2003; 270: 569–575. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.
2292
38. W o j c i k VA , M c B r i d e J R . Common factors influ-
ence bee foraging in urban and wildland landscapes. Urban
Ecosyst. 2012; 15: 581–598. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11252-011-0211-6
39. W o l f S , M o r i t z R F A . Foraging distance in Bombus
terrestris L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Apidologie. 2008; 39:
419–427. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/apido:2008020
40. M a s i e r o w s k a M . Some ornamental shrubs as food so-
urce for pollinating insects. [In:] Banaszak J, editor. Changes
 The potential importance of synanthropic vegetation to bumblebees in urban ecosystems on the example of Lublin
in Fauna of Wild Bees in Europe. Bydgoszcz: Pedagogical
University. 1995; 189–200.
41. W r z e s i e ń M , D e n i s o w B . The share of nectarifero-
us and polleniferous taxons in chosen patches of thermophi-
lous grasslands of the Lublin Upland. Acta Agrobot. 2006;
59(1): 213–221.
42. W r z e s i e ń M , D e n i s o w B . The usable taxons in
spontaneous flora of railway areas of the central-eastern
part of Poland. Acta Agrobot. 2006; 59(2): 95–108.
43. D e n i s o w B , W r z e s i e ń M . The anthropogenic refu-
ge areas for bee flora in agricultural landscape. Acta Agro-
bot. 2007; 60(1): 147–157.
44. P a w l i k o w s k i T . Przewodnik terenowy do oznaczania
trzmieli i trzmielców Polski (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bom-
bini). Toruń: Wyd. UMK. 1999. (in Polish)
45. L i p i ń s k i M . Pożytki pszczele, zapylanie i miododajność
roślin. Warszawa: PWRiL. 2010. (in Polish)
46. M a t u s z k i e w i c z W. Przewodnik do oznaczania zbioro-
wisk roślinnych Polski. Warszawa: PWN. 2004. (in Polish)
47. F i j a ł k o w s k i D . Zbiorowiska roślin synantropijnych
miasta Lublina. Ann UMCS Sec. C. 1967; 22 (17): 195–
230. (in Polish)
48. J a n e c k i J . Człowiek a roślinność synantropijna na przy-
kładzie Warszawy. Warszawa: Wyd. SGGW-AR. 1983. (in
Polish)
49. A l f o r d D V. Bumblebees. London: Davis-Poynter; 1975.
50. H e i n r i c h B . Bumblebee Economics with a new preface
(Revised edition). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
2004.
51. R y s i a k A . Extinct species in the vascular plant flora of
Lublin city (E Poland). [In:] Mirek Z, Nikiel A, (eds) Rare,
relict and endangered plants and fungi in Poland. Kraków:
Wladyslaw Szafer Institute of Botany of the Polish Acade-
my of Sciences. 2009; 443–455.
52. T r z a s k o w s k a E . Wykorzystanie roślin i zbiorowisk
synantropijnych na terenach zieleni Lublina. Lublin: Wyd
KUL. 2013; (in Polish)
53. Kel m M, Biesiada A, K rawczyk M, Ciołek
M . Atrakcyjność kwiatów wybranych roślin zielarskich
dla trzmieli (Apoidea: Bombus spp.). Zesz Probl Postępów
Nauk Rol. 2011; 562: 71–76. (in Polish)
Handling Editor: Elżbieta Pogroszewska
This is an Open Access digital version of the article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
(creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which permits redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, provided that the article is
properly cited.
©The Author(s) 2013 Published by Polish Botanical Society
155
54. Te p e r D . Food plants of Bombus terrestris as determi-
ned by polinological analysis of pollen loads. J Apicul Sci.
2004; 48(2): 75–81.
55. Te p e r D . Food plants of Bombus terrestris as determi-
ned by pollen analysis of faeces. J Apicul Sci. 2006; 50(2):
101–108.
56. B ą k J . Tereny zieleni miejskiej Kielc – miejscem atrak-
cyjnym dla trzmieli (Hymenoptera, Apiformes, Bombini).
[In:] Indykiewicz P, Jerzak L, Barczak T, (eds) Fauna miast.
Ochronić różnorodność biotyczną w miastach. Bydgoszcz:
SAR “Pomorze”. 2008; 265–272. (in Polish)
57. M e n z M H M , P h i l l i p s R D , W i n f r e e R , K r e -
m e n C , A i z e n M A , J o h n s o n S D , et al. Recon-
necting plants and pollinators: challenges in the restoration
of pollination mutualisms. Trends Plant Sci. 2011; 16(1):
4–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2010.09.006.
58. K u p c z y k M . Zginą pszczoły zginie ludzkość. [In:]
Dziek. J, Chmiel J, (eds) To nie przyroda jest na krawędzi.
Barcin: Stowarzyszenie Ekologiczne. 2009; 41–49. (in Po-
lish)
Potencjalne znaczenie roślinności
synantropijnej dla trzmieli w ekosystemach
miejskich na przykładzie Lublina
Streszczenie
W pracy podjęto próbę przedstawienia potencjal-
nie cennych fitocenoz synantropijnych Lublina dla owa-
dów zapylających jakimi są trzmiele. Na terenie Lublina
stwierdzono występowanie B. terrestris i B. lapidarium,
a także B. lucorum, B. hypnorum i B. pascuorum. Ze
względu na stwierdzoną wysoką liczbę gatunków pył-
kodajnych i nektarodajnych do najcenniejszych dla
trzmieli zaliczono: Artemisio-Tanacetetum, Bunietum
orientalis, Berteroëtum incanae. Przeprowadzone ba-
dania pozwoliły również określić, że na rozmieszczenie
trzmieli ma wpływ wielkość i występowanie zbiorowisk
w mozaice z parkami i terenami zieleni.